13
(c) crown copyright Catalogue Reference:CAB/128/41 Image Reference:0052
(c) crown copyright
Catalogue Reference:CAB/128/41 Image Reference:0052
T H I S D O C U M E N T I S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F
H E R B R I T A N N I C M A J E S T Y ' S G O V E R N M E N T
Printed for the Cabinet. March 1967
CC (66) Copy No . 3 8 52nd Conclusions
CABINET
CONCLUSIONS of a Meeting of the Cabinet held at 10 Downing . Street, S.W.1, on Thursday, 27th October, 1966, at 10 a.m.
Present: The Right Hon. HAROLD WILSON, M P , Prime Minister
The Right Hon. GEORGE BROWN, M P , The Right Lion. JAMES CALLAGHAN, M P, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Chancellor of the Exchequer
The Right Hon. LORD GARDINER, The Right Hon. HERBERT BOWDEN, M P,
Lord Chancellor Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs
The Right Hon. RICHARD CROSSMAN, The Right Hon. DENIS HEALEY, M P, M P , Lord President of the Council Secretary of State for Defence
The Right Hon. ROY JENKINS, M P , The Right Hon. WILLIAM R O S S , M P , Secretary of State for the Home Secretary of State for Scotland Department
The Right Hon. DOUGLAS HOUGHTON, The Right Hon. ANTHONY CROSLAND, M P , Minister without Portfolio M P , Secretary of State for Education
and Science
The Right Hon. ANTHONY GREENWOOD, The Right Hon. THE EARL OF M P , Minister of Housing and Local LONGFORD, Lord Privy Seal Government
The Right Hon. R. J. GUNTER, M P , The Right Hon. BARBARA CASTLE, M P , Minister of Labour Minister of Transport
The Right Hon. CLEDWYN HUGHES, The Right Hon. FREDERICK LEE, M P , M P , Secretary of State for Wales Secretary of State for the Colonies
The Right Hon. ANTHONY WEDGWOOD B E N R M p , Minister of Technology
The following were also present: The Right Hon. EDWARD SHORT, M P , The Right Hon. Sir ELWYN JONES, Q C,
Postmaster-General (Item 5) M p, Attorney-General (Item 6) 'The Right Hon. JOHN SILKIN, M P , Mr. WILLIAM RODGERS, M P , Parlia-
Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury mentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Economic Affairs (Item 5)
Secretariat: Sir BURKE TREND
Mr. P. ROGERS
Mr. L . ERRINGTON
Mr. K. BARNES
CONTENTS
Subject
PARLIAMENT
SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENT
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMME
Homosexual Law Reform
OVERSEA AFFAIRS
South-West Africa
Nigeria
TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY AND POST OFFICE
PROCUREMENT POLICY
ABERFAN DISASTER
Parliament
Sunday Entertainment (Previous Reference: CC (65) 35th Conclusions, Minute 7)
CONFIDENTIAL - 3 321 CC 52 (66)
CONFIDENTIAL
1. The Cabinet were informed of the business to be taken in the House of Commons in the following week.
CONFIDENTIAL
2. The Minister without Portfolio said that the Home Affairs Committee had recently considered the issues of policy arising on the Sunday Entertainment Bill which Lord Willis was about to introduce in the House of Lords. He recalled that the Cabinet had considered the recommendations of the departmental committee on the Law on Sunday Observance (the Crathorne Committee) on 1st July, 1965, and had agreed that Parliament should be given an opportunity to pronounce on the recommendations but that this could best be achieved if a Bill were introduced in Private Members' time, all decisions being left to a free vote. It had also been agreed that the Governments should be ready to offer drafting facilities, but that no undertaking could be given to provide Government time for the Bill in Parliament. Although no Private Member had taken the matter up at the time, Lord Willis had subsequently announced his intention of introducing a Bill in the House of Lords and had been given assistance in drafting it. The proposals in his Bill, however, differed in some important respects from the recommendations of the Crathorne Committee. In particular, whereas the Crathorne Committee recommended that no professional sporting events should be allowed on Sundays, Lord Willis's Bill would permit on Sunday mornings events for which no charge was made for admission, provided that they were not primarily intended for spectators. The Crathorne Committee recommended that amateur events should be allowed after 12.30 p.m. on Sundays, whereas Lord Willis's Bill would allow events after 2 p.m. whether professional or amateur and whether or not they were primarily intended for spectators, so long as no charge was made for admission. The Home Affairs Committee considered that these proposals might be more contentious and more difficult to apply than the corresponding recommendations of the Crathorne Committee. They had, therefore, concluded that, while a free vote should be allowed, the attitude of the Government spokesman in the debate on Lord Willis's Bill in the House of Lords should be one of strict neutrality and in particular that no assurance should be given that facilities would be accorded to the Bill in the House of Commons. They had also concluded that further consideration should be given to the policy to be adopted in respect of Sunday entertainment in the light of the debate in the House of Lords on Lord Willis's Bill.
In discussion there was general agreement with this view.
The C a b i n e t
(1) Invited the Home Secretary, in consultation with the Lord Privy Seal, to arrange for the Government spokesman
Legislative Programme Homosexual Law Reform (Previous Reference: CC (65) 28th Conclusions, Minute 5)
in the debate on Lord Willis's Bill to be guided by the considerations indicated by the Minister without Portfolio.
(2) Invited the Minister without Portfolio to arrange for the Governmenfs policy on Sunday entertainment to be further considered in the light of the debate in the House of Lords on Lord Willis's Bill.
SECRET
3. The Cabinet considered a memorandum by the Home Secretary (C (66) 144) on homosexual law reform.
The Home Secretary recalled that the Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution (the Wolfenden Committee) had recommended that homosexual acts in private between consenting adults should cease to be unlawful. When the Cabinet had previously discussed the matter in connection with a motion by Lord Arran in the House of Lords, it had been decided that the Government should adopt a neutral attitude on the principles involved and in particular that no undertaking should be given to provide Parliamentary time for a Private Membefs Bill. Since then the House of Lords had twice passed Lord Arran's Bill to give effect to this recommendation of the Wolfenden Committee, while the House of Commons had given a Second Reading to a similar Bill and had subsequently given Mr. Abse leave under the Ten-Minute Rule to introduce a Bill which had now been published and was for all practical purposes identical with Lord Arran's Bill.
While the Government should still adhere to its neutral attitude on principles, it would be under strong criticism, in view of the recent votes in both Houses, if some time were not provided to enable Mr. Abse's Bill to make progress. Further, if the matter were left in abeyance, there would be continuing difficulty in administering the Criminal Law in this field. The arguments for providing Government time to the Bill were similar to those which had obtained in the case of Mr. Silverman's Bill to abolish capital punishment. In these circumstances the balance of advantage lay in making available half a day of Government time for the Second Reading debate on Mr. Abse's Bill.
In discussion it was pointed out that, despite the shift of opinion disclosed by the votes in both Houses, there were still strong feelings on the issues involved. It was suggested that to give Government time for the Bill might be widely interpreted as indicating Government support and that it might prove difficult to resist pressure for further Government time for the Report and Third Reading if the Bill ran into difficulties. The fact that no Private Member had chosen to take the matter up until Mr. Abse had raised it under the Ten-Minute Rule would make it difficult to justify providing Government time, and to give priority to this Bill would be criticised by the sponsors of other Private Members' Bills who would seek similar preferential treatment.
Oversea Affairs South-West Africa (Previous Reference: CC(66) 36th Conclusions, Minute 2)
3 fJ o
CC 52 (66)
On the other hand, it was argued that Government time for discussion of the Bill could be justified without compromising the neutral attitude of the Government by the fact that a majority in both Houses had been shown to favour the implementation of the Wolfenden Committee's recommendation in this respect. The risk that further Government time would have to be given might be avoided if it were made clear at the outset that thereafter the Bill would have to follow the usual course without Government assistance. It was also suggested that, since there would otherwise be a continuing campaign to give effect to this recommendation of the Wolfenden Committee, it would be preferable to provide the opportunity for an early debate.
The Prime Minister, summing up the discussion, said that the Cabinet were agreed that on a balance of considerations a half day of Government time should be made available for a Second Reading debate on Mr. Abse's Bill. The Governments attitude should be one of neutrality and a free vote allowed but it should be made clear that the Government were in no way committed to giving further time for the Bill.
The Cabinet—
(1) Invited the Lord President, in consultation with the Home Secretary and the Chief Whip, to arrange that half a day of Government Parliamentary time should be made available for a Second Reading debate on Mr. Abse's Bill.
(2) Invited the Home Secretary to arrange for the debate on Mr. Abse's Bill to be conducted in the manner indicated by the Prime Minister in his summing up of their discussion.
SECRET
4. The Foreign Secretary said that a resolution on South-West Africa would shortly be put to the vote in the General Assembly of the United Nations. This would raise serious difficulties for us, since the resolution was far from satisfactory, despite our attempts to secure suitable amendment. The resolution not only declared that South Africa had forfeited her mandate over South-West Africa but also that the United Nations should assume responsibility for it. This was wholly impracticable, since the United Nations had not the machinery either to take over the mandate nor to administer the territory thereafter. He had accordingly instructed the United Kingdom Representative at the United Nations to abstain from voting on the resolution but to explain that this action was taken solely because the resolution proposed the assumption of a responsibility by the United Nations which they could not discharge. It seemed probable that a number of other nations would similarly abstain, including the United States, Australia and some European countries.
Nigeria (Previous Reference: CC(66) 51st Conclusions, Minute 4)
Telecommunications Industry and Post Office Procurement Policy
In discussion it was generally recognised that despite our repeatedly declared opposition to the policy of apartheid in South Africa, the right course was to abstain from voting on either this or other resolutions which purported to commit the United Nations Organisation to action which it could not carry out. There was considerable support for the view that there might be advantage in giving further consideration to the general policy which the Government should adopt on resolutions of such a nature in the United Nations and to the assumption by United Nations bodies such as the Committee of Twenty-Four of rights which they did not possess under the Charter.
The Commonwealth Secretary said that there had been no substantial change in the position in Nigeria since he had last reported it to the Cabinet. The Constitutional Council had adjourned and though it was due to meet again that day there was little possibility that the Eastern Region would be represented. There was reason to hope that a general breakdown of the Federation during the course of the next few weeks might be avoided and consideration was being given to the possibility of a mission of Commonwealth representatives which might help to bridge the present gap between the Northern and Eastern Regions. This and other aspects of the situation would be considered the following day by the Defence and Oversea Policy Committee. Meanwhile, it was satisfactory that United Kingdom nationals did not appear to be in any danger.
The Cabinet—
Took note of the statements by the Foreign Secretary and the Commonwealth Secretary.
SECRET
5. The Cabinet considered a joint memorandum by the Minister of Technology and the Postmaster-General (C (66) 145) on the future procurement policy of the Post Office in relation to the telecommunications industry.
The Postmaster-General said that the supply of subscribers' telephone apparatus was at present regulated by a Bulk Supply Agreement (BSA) under which five major firms were guaranteed orders for 75 per cent of the apparatus required. This would expire in March 1968 and it had already been announced that it would not be renewed. It was now necessary to make an announcement about the arrangements which would apply following the termination of the Agreement in order that the industry might have adequate time to make preparations. It was common ground between himself and the Minister of Technology that as from March 1968 a system of open competitive tendering should be introduced: but there was a division of view about the longer-term arrangements. The Minister of Technology proposed that there should be a joint production unit, comprising the Post Office and the five main firms, which would
" 7 323 CC 52 (66)
become the sole supplier. If this proposal were adopted, it would be essential in any announcement of future arrangements to make it clear to the industry that competitive tendering was only an interim policy. Any such announcement would cause confusion in the industry and the benefits of competitive tendering would not in fact materialise. The industry was not basically inefficient and the decline in its share of world exports was primarily due to the monopoly conditions created by the BSA. The solution proposed by the Minister of Technology would enhance the present monopolistic tendencies and fail to promote the industry's ability to compete in international markets.
If the joint production unit proposed by the Minister of Technology were to be merely a holding company, there would be no gain to industrial efficiency. If on the other hand it involved the creation of a single large production unit, this would call for heavy capital investment, would remove competition, and would have unfortunate consequences for the development areas where existing factories might be closed. The analogy between the solution proposed by the Minister of Technology and the system in Sweden and the United States was misleading since in both those countries there was effective competition between a number of organisations. A further objection was that it would separate the production of subscribers' telephone apparatus from the rest of the telecommunications industry, which was technologically undesirable.
If competitive tendering were introduced from March 1968 this would not be incompatible with the establishment in due course of a consortium for exports only. It would also be desirable to strengthen arrangements for joint facilities with the industry for research and development and to hold discussions with the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation (IRC) on the future structure of the industry.
The Minister of Technology said that this was the first major issue of Government procurement policy which fell to be decided since it had been agreed to make increased use of procurement as an instrument for raising industrial efficiency. It would have been preferable to consider the matter against the background of the report on public sector procurement policy which would shortly be available, but this was not possible since the prospective termination of the BSA and the fact that the new Deputy Chairman of the Post Office Board (whose previous firm was involved) would shortly be taking up duty made an immediate announcement necessary. The proposal for a joint production unit for the supply of subscribers' apparatus had been under study for some time: and the change in the status of the Post Office about 1968 would facilitate the introduction of a radical industrial change at the same time. The figures of exports for the first half of 1966 showed that we were losing ground rapidly to the Swedes and Germans: a basic cause was the separation of the Post Office, as the major customer, from the industry. A joint production unit would enable the industry to work
more effectively with the Post Office in defining requirements, would secure the maximum integration of the expertise of the Post Office in marketing, design a n i production and that of the manufacturers and would thus lead to a scale of production comparable with that of major United States firms. The real element of competition arose from foreign firms generally rather than competitive tendering in the United Kingdom. If however we were to go no further than the introduction of competitive tendering, the method proposed for this would not eliminate the smaller and less efficient manufacturers and would thus weaken the competitive ability of the industry. The announcement on future policy should therefore be in terms which would permit the Government to establish a joint production unit in due course if further examination, in the first instance by officials, should substantiate its advantages.
In discussion, it was questioned whether the structural changes that were desirable in the industry would be secured simply by ending the BSA and introducing open tendering. There was no assurance that the latter would lead to more effective competition; indeed it might rather accelerate the emergence of a strong private monopoly. In these circumstances, it would accord with the Governments general policy to introduce an element of public ownership into the industry by establishing a joint production unit. This would enable the Government to keep an effective check on costs, prices and industrial efficiency.
On the other hand, it was argued that a decision ought not to be taken on the establishment of a joint production unit without much further examination of its implications and against the background of the forthcoming report on procurement policy in the public sector. If an announcement were made now foreshadowing this solution, a considerable time would inevitably elapse before a joint production unit could be established, and this would lead to a prolonged period of confusion and uncertainty in the industry. While a single consortium with Post Office participation might possibly be the solution in the long run, it was not immediately practicable and a change to competitive tendering, coupled with the use of procurement policy to secure rationalisation of the industry, would in any event be the best initial step. It seemed improbable moreover that competitive tendering would lead to the emergence of a private monopoly in this field since it was only a small part of the activities of the very large firms in question.
The Prime Minister, summing up the discussion, said that an early announcement was necessary and on balance the Cabinet took the view that it would be premature to decide now on the establishment of a joint production unit. The Postmaster-General should therefore announce the introduction of competitive tendering as from March 1968 on the lines proposed in paragraph 4 of the memorandum. There was general agreement, however, that such a step might of itself be inadequate to secure the necessary improvement in the industry's competitive ability. There should therefore be further study of the need for changes in the structure of
AberfanDisaster
'/
CC 52 (66)
the industry, leading to early discussions with the IRC. Further consideration should also be given to the possibility of an industrial consortium for exports.
The Cabinet—
(1) Invited the Postmaster-General to make an immediate announcement, on the lines indicated in paragraph 4 of C (66) 145, that a system of competitive tendering would be introduced following the expiry in March 1968 of the Bulk Supply Agreement for the supply of subscribers' telephone apparatus.
(2) Invited the First Secretary of State, in consultation with the Minister of Technology and the Postmaster-General, to arrange for further study of the need for changes in the structure of the telecommunications industry, including the possibility of establishing a consortium for exports, and for early discussion of these questions with the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation.
CONFIDENTIAL
6. The Secretary of State for Wales said that he had little to j j he public statements which had been made earlier in the
week by the Prime Minister and himself. The latest figures for casualties were that 145 bodies had been recovered (of which 114 were children) and 141 identified. There was reason for concern at the uncertainty about the number of those who might still be missing: a figure of 50 had been widely mentioned, but a more realistic figure might be of the order of 10. It seemed unlikely that in such a small community the number both of children and of occupants of
individual houses would not be well known: two or three passers-by might also have been killed, but hardly more. It was possible that some bodies on the site might never be recovered.
a c c t 0 t
To sit under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Edmund Davies he had appointed as additional members of the Tribunal Mr. Harold Harding, an eminent consulting engineer, and Mr. Vernon Lawrence, a former Clerk of the Monmouth County Council. Lord Justice Davies was pursuing the enquiry urgently and hoped to hold a preliminary hearing of evidence in about a fortnight. The full enquiry would necessarily take some considerable time and an interim report would be made if the Tribunal considered that this would be of value. Under the legal aid procedure the bereaved families did not qualify for legal aid for representation before the Tribunal. It was clearly important that they should be properly represented. In these circumstances means should be found of providing the cost, under the legal aid procedure, of a single team of lawyers to represent all those families who wish to take advantage of this course, though it would naturally be open to anyone who wished to arrange separate representation.
CONFIDENTIAL
The Aberfan colliery was not at present working and the miners were employed by the National Coal Board on stabilising the tip. Normal work would not start again in the colliery until after the Board had consulted both the Minister of Power and himself.
In discussion there was full agreement that provision for legal aid should be made on the lines proposed by the Secretary of State. Concern was, however, expressed at two aspects of the enquiry:
(a) The timetable gave cause for anxiety. The delay in taking evidence from those immediately concerned would inevitably involve the risk that the memory of precisely what had happened would by then be blurred. Equally important, there would be grave public concern that the causes of such a disaster, and therefore any consideration of action which should be taken to avoid a repetition elsewhere, would be so long delayed. It was recognised that the procedure which had been followed in earlier Tribunals necessarily involved considerable delay, since it required the taking of evidence by the Treasury Solicitor before a case could be presented to the Tribunal. It was, however, urged that the issues of the present instance differed radically from those in earlier Tribunals, owing to the wholly different nature of the event. There was general agreement that the procedure should be considered by the Ministers immediately concerned with a view to a much shorter timetable both for the initiation and for the completion of the enquiry.
(b) Concern was also expressed at the extent to which interviews were still being carried out on television with people at Aberfan who might be witnesses before the Tribunal. This was highly prejudicial to the conduct of the enquiry. There was agreement that the Postmaster-General should be invited to make representations to the television companies concerned and that the Attorney-General should make a statement in the House of Commons deploring the practice.
In further discussion concern was expressed about the action which was being taken in respect of some other dangerous tips where, for example, children were being kept away from school because of their parents' fears of a similar disaster. It was suggested that in these particular instances there would be advantage if the engineers of the National Coal Board who were inspecting the tips were joined by a representative of the Chief Inspector of Mines and perhaps by some outside engineers.
The Cabinet—
(1) Invited the Secretary of State for Wales, in consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General, to make arrangements for the provision of legal aid to bereaved families who wished to be represented on a collective basis at the Tribunal.
(2) Invited the Attorney-General, in consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Wales, to consider what steps could be taken to ensure that hearings by the Tribunal were opened and its report completed at the earliest possible date.
(3) Invited the Postmaster-General, in consultation with the Attorney-General, to bring to the notice of television companies concerned the undesirability of televising interviews with persons who might be witnesses before the Tribunal, since this was highly prejudicial to the enquiry.
(4) Invited the Attorney-General, in the light of the action taken under Conclusion (3) and in consultation with the . Secretary of State for Wales, to make a statement in the House of Commons on the undesirability of such interviews.
(5) Invited the Minister of Power, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Wales, to consider in the light of the discussion the arrangements for the inspection of particularly dangerous tips similar to that which had caused the disaster at Aberfan.
Cabinet Office, S.W.1, 27th October, 1966.
